Related

Comments

Hey Sou, that ‘fame and riches’ post and comment thread is extraordinary.

‘Irony’, though? In many cases I think not! Ever since I was revolted by the dismal Delingpole’s crowing over being made a ‘rock star’ by Heartland I’ve been struck by the extraordinary opportunity Denial provides to the second-rate, hack, or otherwise-undistinguished.

Here’s a quiz question; what do you reckon the chances of gaining global attention for the likes of Delingpole, Monckton etc. – hell, even the ludicrous Josh – would have been had they not thrown in their lot with a minority reactionary cause that just happened to be sponsored by some of the world’s largest and most powerful economically vested interests?

What ‘claim to fame’ might any of them have made had they supported the scientific consensus, and what would have been the likely result of their competing for attention in the much-wider field of ‘mainstream’ – and hard-won – expertise?

We even see it here on a smaller scale, with no-marks who would otherwise languish in an obscurity as complete as their merits (or absence thereof) getting lashings of attention – and playing at having intellects – by regurgitating the oily scraps those they’ve elevated to tawdry fame repay the compliment by disgorging for them.

A quicker and more cheaply-earned path to narcissistic gratification could scarcely be imagined! If you don’t much give a damn about the consequences, of course…

And there it is. Proof. When certain commenters are firmly required to demonstrate intellectual integrity and *honesty*, they are stymied. They cannot defend their positions. They cannot answer specific questions. They cannot justify their behaviour.

You know who you are, and you know what this proves about your “scepticism”. So how about rejecting it?

Bill, I am fascinated by the seediness of Richard Tol and his ineptitude. How he manages to hang onto a position in a university I don’t know. How he managed to get appointed as a lead author to the IPCC I don’t know either. It will be interesting to read his chapter when it comes out.

The man has dropped all pretence at ethics but looking at his past behaviour maybe he never pretended ethical behaviour.

I nearly shut down the thread when it got sidetracked into stats and he started being treated as if his number crunching meant something. But I ended up leaving it open. In the meantime I checked and discovered he’s not one for truth and honest dealings. A man to be avoided in real life.

TANYA NOLAN: The World Bank has issued a dire warning about the impact of climate change on the world’s poorest people.

In its revised Turn Down the Heat report, the World Bank says severe hardships will be felt within a generation and it says there’s a growing chance that warming will reach or exceed four degrees Celsius in this century.

Emily Bourke reports.

EMILY BOURKE: The president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, is alarmed by what lies ahead.

JIM YONG KIM: The conclusions in this report should make all of us lose sleep over what our world will look like in our lifetimes. The conclusions are clear – a world that warms by two degrees Celsius perhaps in just 20 or 30 years will cause vast parts of African croplands to wither, submerge large swathes of cities in South Asia and kill off much of the fisheries in some parts of South-East Asia

EMILY BOURKE: The updated Turn Down the Heat climate report, was commissioned by the World Bank.

It says evidence over the past seven months indicates that projections for greenhouse gas emissions have been too low and that now there’s a growing chance that warming will reach or exceed four degrees Celsius in this century unless emissions are cut quickly and deeply.

The World Bank’s Jim Yong Kim says the severe effects on water will disproportionately affect the world’s poorest.

JIM YONG KIM: Consider these forecasts in the report – in South Asia, shifting rain patterns will leave some areas underwater and others without enough water for power generation, agriculture or drinking.

Sea level rise coupled with more intense tropical cyclones could mean extensive flooding in coastal areas of Bangladesh as well as in cities such as Kolkata and Mumbai.

In South-East Asia at two degree Celsius, maximum fish catch will decline by 50 per cent in the Southern Philippines, loss of the coral reefs will diminish tourism, reduce fish stocks and leave coastal communities more vulnerable to less frequent but increasingly violent storms.

Across all regions the growing movement of impacted communities into urban areas could lead to ever higher numbers of people in slums and other informal settlements being exposed to heat waves, flooding, mud slides and epidemics of disease.

KELLY DENT: I think it’s a real wake-up call that there needs to be a massive injection of political will including by the Australian Government.

EMILY BOURKE: Kelly Dent is from Oxfam.

KELLY DENT: Australia has to be able to pay its way in terms of supporting developing countries. Now this needs to go through a global climate fund, it also needs to go by way of bilateral support to climate projects, to projects that affect the communities but it needs to be above the existing and committed aid budget because the aid budgets for lifting people out of poverty and for meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

JIM YONG KIM: We are developing tools that help countries better assess and adapt to climate change including transforming the way we farm to maximise productivity and resilience and doubling global renewal energy and efficiency and we can’t ignore the financing challenge.

The world needs to find innovative ways to set an appropriate price on carbon. If we can get prices right, we can redirect finance to low carbon growth, lessen the changes of two degree warming and avoid a four degree world.

EMILY BOURKE: And he’s issued a blunt warning to those who are still unsure about climate change.

JIM YONG KIM: If you disagree with the science of human caused climate change, what you are disagreeing with is science itself and as far as I know it’s the best we got. You know, the modern science is the best we have and so I think it’s really stop, a time to stop arguing about whether it’s real or not.

I’ve lost count of the number of once in a life-time events that happened in the last two or three years. You know, duh, there is something going on here folks, once in a life-time events all the time, right?

This is real and I can just see it. You know, my kids already, I can see the way they’re going to talk to me. They’re going to say, oh thanks dad, right, you were president of the World Bank, what did you do when you knew that this was going to happen to us?

TANYA NOLAN: That’s president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, Emily Bourke with that report.

But of course this wouldn’t matter to Betula, GSW, Olaus Petri, KarenMackSunspot, Jonas N, David Duff, Freddy (the multi-socked creationist visiting from A Few Things Ill-considered), pentaxz, and the other white male Westerners here.

After all, climate change doesn’t happen to them, so it’s irrelevant if a few Third World people of coloured persuasion are lost to unusual weather event… even when those weather events stop being unusual, and even when it’s a few more than a few…

Stuffing their ignorant, mindless heads up their arses is heaven for denialist trolls such as the aforementioned. I really wish that there was a wrathful God, because it would be just retribution for the Denialati to be cast in to lakes of fire for all eternity as penalty for their sins against humanity.

Please list the errors found in Marcott et al. that have resulted in changes to the paper.

* * *

(Bernard J:)

1) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

3) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

4) In the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

5) In the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

@bill #14 Watts has been publishing some very weird stuff lately. I don’t think he is capable of distinguishing off-the-planet weird from normal denialist weird. He relies on his readers to tell him. And most of them don’t know the difference either.

On the subject of weird/funny, denialsists are all DuKE-ing it out, with WM Briggs entering the fray and getting it as embarrassingly wrong as rgbatduke did, but for other reasons.

And once you’ve greased the wheels with those basics, perhaps you could tell thread what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 17 years? How long to detect such in 15 years? And how long to detect it in 10 years?

My guess is that you don’t know, and also that you don’t understand the import of these values in the context of either the science of the underlying warming, or the biological responses to the resulting climate change.

“because it would be just retribution for the Denialati to be cast in to lakes of fire for all eternity”

So your religion is Global Warming with Deltoid being your Church, scientists the Disciples and the IPCC your Bible. Those of us who say you can’t prove the existence of the outcome, whether it be Heaven or Hell, are sinners, and therefore destined to eternal Global Warming.

“perhaps you could tell thread what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 17 years? How long to detect such in 15 years? And how long to detect it in 10 years?”

It would all depend on which paper you are reading at the time. For example, you forgot to mention a 23 day time scale..

You might just as well be like the buffoon I encountered the other day who turned up at SkS claiming they had never put forward any evidence CO2 was changing the climate! I mean, are you actually a complete dill, or do you just play one on the internet?

So your religion is Global Warming with Deltoid being your Church, scientists the Disciples and the IPCC your Bible.

No.

Lotharsson and Bill have already whacked you with the get-a-brain stick, but I might as well join the fray and point out that you are confusing metaphor with something literal.

If you can’t get such a basic language instrument right, it’s no wonder that you struggle with science – even the basic science to which you’ve been led by the nose, but at which which you refuse to look.

Which is fine by me. I’m not the one embarrassed by your persistent display of ignorance. And if you aren’t in your own turn so embarrassed, then that’s simply an indication of just how pig-ignorant you really are.

Now, do you need me to repeat the questions yet again, or do you think that you might actually be able to manage to locate and read them all by yourself, and to reply?

Bernard…
” I really wish that there was a wrathful God, because it would be just retribution for the Denialati to be cast in to lakes of fire for all eternity as penalty for their sins against humanity.”

Sloth…
“tired and trite attempts to analogise reliance on the processes of science with religious belief ”

Betty, explain the connection between “the processes of science ” and ” I really wish”, because I can’t see what your denier brain seems to illuminate for you. Not without a whole heap of wishful thinking and projection.

After separating out all the noise, we can see there was an upward linear trend that plateaued and is now on a steep decline….

Only if you are engaged in deliberate misrepresentation aka the “cooling over the last decade” meme.

Fact – you are reading *far* too much into an uninformatively short period.

Here’s the unvarnished truth: there are two strong La Niña events in the second half of the period (2008 and the “double-dip” LN of 2011 – 2012). This inevitably depresses the trend. Nobody serious would attempt to go any further than that. It would be a blatant, deceitful cherry pick, as is instantly obvious from any clear presentation of the data.

Read the words and look at the graph. If you are half-way to being a decent human being, you will feel some shame. You don’t have to admit that here of course – but just stop repeating the lie.

…”even the basic science to which you’ve been led by the nose, but at which which you refuse to look”

Exactly. Betty’s had the literature pasted in front of his face many times and his response to that? To close his eyes very tightly and to whimper, “it ain’t so! It ain’t so!”. Instead, he relies on his own gut instincts which we all know here mean diddly squat. And every so often he comes up with hilarious examples he has conjured up from some place of another.

Sigh…I wish there was a stricter troll policy here. I like this blog and I’d like to visit more often but unfortunately the presence of persistent, stupid, moronic denier trolls who have nothing intelligent to contribute is a put-off. Even for me, it makes my brain hurt to read their inane shit; I can’t imagine what it must feel like for others here who are more educated and more intelligent.

Anyway, this aside, I’d like to read a rebuttal of the latest denier nonsense that I first heard about on talk-back radio yesterday, namely that recent measurement by NASA show that CO2 cools the planet by reflecting 95% of the sun’s energy, or something to that effect. I did a quick google and this meme is all over the web, spreading like a virus.

My take on it, assuming that the story is genuine and the figures correct, is that it doesn’t mean anything. It changes nothing in regards to the planet’s accumulation of energy. A bit like someone stuck in a drain during a flash-flood and in danger of drowning and a denier saying there’s nothing to worry about because 95% of the water is actually falling outside the drain. If 5% of the sun’s energy (don’t know if that’s correct, but just using it for the purpose of the argument) is what’s keeping the planet warm, then it’s irrelevant how much is being reflected. That’s my uninformed opinion. Any comments?

Not being able to tell the difference between the predicted demise of Deltoid and the predicted outcome of climate change you attempt to hide your dumber than dirt mistake with this logic @ 41…

“Every time you use a denialist lie – even in simile – you are *spreading* the excrement in the public domain. What disturbs me is that you don’t understand that this is a crime against humanity.”

So, predicting the future demise of Deltoid is a crime against humanity, because calling predicted future climate scenarios what they are….predictions, is a crime against humanity.

Now that’s THICK.

Let’s review some of the other Deltoid Disciple’s musings:

1.Bernard, conflating climate and religion, claims that calling a prediction a prediction is reason enough to be sent to the lakes of Global Warming for eternity.
I hear a promotion to Bishop may be in the works…

2. Hardley, who blatantly lied about experiencing climate change “first hand” and seeing shifting zones “for real” over a 23 day time scale while obtaining frost bite, is promoted to High Priest of Deltoid for his efforts.

3. Lionel A, who was exposed for embellishing articles at #2 on page 5 and again at #’s 94 and 95 on pg 5 (all for the sake of promoting the cause) is considered a top Deltoid Deacon.

That leaves you as an altar boy BBD, occasionally singing with the Choir, with little chance of advancement due to the fact that you are dumber than dirt.

Betula loves to talk about ‘lies and embellishment’. How about his ‘ignorance and embellishment’. For sheer unadulturated stupidity, birch man ranks near the top.

Note how he’s tried to stay away from some of his howlers – C02 fertilization as a good thing, the wonderful state of eastern NA ecosystems and glacial retreat – and focus on pedantics. He also has clearly never read a peer-reviwed paper in his life; when they are stuck in front of him, in keeping with his usual demenor, he doesn’t respond to them but goes off in another direction.

To top all of this off, the guy thinks he is both smart and witty. That is probably the biggest irony of all – to wallow in a pit of ignorance and to try and ridicule those who conistently shoot down your garbage. Betula appears to think that saying something off the top of his head and then ignoring a veritable flood of responses with scientific support makes him a good debater.

Sorry Betula, it doesn’t. That’s why your support on Deltoid is down to a few hacks and cronies. Nor can you boast of huge support in the scientific community; you are left with a lot of politically motivated but scientifically illiterate people like yourself who glean their views from AGW denier weblogs. You’ve proven that you are an ignoramus. Why add to this legacy?

The evidence for both is recorded above, for all time… well, at least for as long as there is an internet. Which is still a long time to be recognised as a denialist who is criminally ignorant of basic science.

And what’s with you bonnet-bee about my metaphorical allusion to the sins of those who stand in the way of preventing further damage to the planet? You yourself have been peppering the thread with many more direct science-religion confabulations, and from a time before my own reference. Hypocrisy, much?

Its strange how Betula tries to spin one link in the AGW chain – increased atmospheric concentrations of C02 – into something positive, but when it comes to the warming part of it, “we don’t know if it is happening”.

Tis stuff comes straight from a comic book. Betula, the more you write the worse you look. I never said that increased C02 was a bad thing, but that it would have unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences on ecological systems as a result of a complex interplay of physiological changes in plant properties, responses up the food chain, and effects on processes like competition, community assembly and plant-consumer interactions. You intimated that it was a good thing on the basis of your profoundly ignorant understanding of the field. But you seem to think its OK for humans to simplify and alter the planet’s surface so long as we do not understand the outcome of this ‘experiment’. With people like you around, who needs regulatory bodies in government? Heck, allow every product corporations produce to be marketed and sold until harmful effects are found. Let the Pharmaceutical companies sell all of their drugs without preliminary checks. Let the pesticide manufacturers patent everything they produce, and use it without a second thought until empirical evidence proves it harms human health or the environment. And so on and s forth. Why stop at 400 ppm with atmospheric C02 concentrations? Lets see if we can crack the 500, 600 or 700 ppm barrier, until concrete proof comes in that it has serious effects on nature. Of course, given the time lags involved, by this time it will be far too late to do anything. But you get the idea with mindsets like old Betula’s. Calling it gumbified is a compliment.

This is like putting the cart before the horse. Open Pandora’s Box and wait until the shit hits the fan, then do something about it. And make sure that the shit has indeed hit the fan – even if there are signs it will, keep spewing it out until there is 100% proof.

In spite of what Betula might think of himself, he’s a full blown bonafide idiot. He can’t debate at all, but thinks he is clever and witty. Everything he says drags him deeper and deeper into the mire. Its actually fun watching this happen.

I wonder if (being woefully stupid, as you are) you don’t quite get what I am driving at here.

You are routinely wrong about climate change science and routinely corrected. Yet you routinely return with the same, discredited bollocks or variations on the denialist theme. This is intellectual dishonesty. Or put simply, lying.

It is your default mode of communication here. It is a crime against humanity, and you are scum.

And I never said it was a good thing. I said your predictions are predictions based on unknowns…CO2 fertilization being one of them.|

A thinly disguised lie. Is this a feeble attempt at plausible deniability of denial? If so, it doesn’t work.

There’s a great pile of evidence that says rapid warming will fuck up agricultural productivity and the ecosystem with equal thoroughness. Only liars pretend otherwise.

Misrepresentation of the potential seriousness of rapid future warming is a crime against humanity. Only the vilest scum engage in such poisoned rhetoric. They are regarded with loathing and contempt by the rest of the species. Why would anyone sane want to be lumped in with the vermin?

All your rhetoric about uncertainty and good outcomes is a lie, Betty. If you are so abysmally stupid that you don’t even realise what you are doing then this conversation isn’t going to progress to a satisfactory outcome.

Which would be that you accept that you know nothing, accept that you have been lying about CC, renounce your denialism, accept the scientific evidence and consensus of evidence, and fuck off from this place, never to be heard from again.

You know it makes sense. You’d feel so much better about yourself. In your heart of hearts you must have an inkling that all you are is an unpaid shill for vested corporate interests and swivel-eyed right wing nutters. Who wants to be a capitalist lackey and a water carrier for the self-serving right?

“Which would be that you accept that you know nothing, accept that you have been lying about CC, renounce your denialism, accept the scientific evidence and consensus of evidence, and fuck off from this place, never to be heard from again”

Since you have not one iota of expertise, on what basis do you reject the scientific consensus on AGW?

This is the root of your intellectual dishonesty. When I’ve raised this with you before (eg May thread), you became extremely evasive then started lying:

Here was my response to your lies:

********************************

# 95 BBD:

This is a fucking flat-out lie:

The problem here is that all possible positive reactions are taken out of the prediction equation….they carry no weight in the projection of predictions that potentially may happen to a system that is too complex to possibly know how all the interactions will react. Why is that?

Why are deniers so fucking dishonest?

Why is that?

Well we know, don’t we? It’s because they are arguing against a robust scientific consensus without benefit of a scientific counter-argument.

This is your proof of a lie? Be more specific, show me the words. Prove to me there aren’t any uncertainties or unknowns in predicting future scenarios, prove to me the effect of CO2 fertilization on climate, if any, are certain …. until then, you are in the shit can:

I don’t have to prove a damned thing to you, Betty. Try to get this into your buttock-thick head.

You have no choice but to accept the scientific consensus – which is that warming is potentially very dangerous indeed unless moderated.

You have no choice because:

– You are not an expert

– You have no robust scientific counter-argument

If you *still* cannot understand the profundity of your intellectual dishonesty in *rejecting* the scientific consensus and foghorning your stupid misconceptions in comments here then I don’t know what else to do.

You have no choice but to admit the future scenarios are predictions…. NO CHOICE….because they are.
In the process of predicting, there are admittedly many uncertainties and unknowns that come into play…ADMITTEDLY.

Now, since you are a genius of sorts, please explain to me, with CERTAINTY, the role something such as CO2 fertilization may play in the overall scheme of things.

But Betty, I’ve already shown you that the climate system is sensitive to radiative perturbation and that empirical estimates from paleoclimate give us an ECS/2xCO2 of about 3C.

I didn’t have to do that either, but that was back when I could still be bothered with your lying denialist rhetoric. You imploded, remember? No countering scientific argument, just weak, dishonest blather about uncertainty.

As several people have explained here, CO2 fertilisation is a fucking irrelevance compared to the effects of abrupt climate change on plant physiology and global agricultural productivity.

Relentlessly going on and on and on about it is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. This too, has been explained to you.

But on you go.

I repeat: misrepresentation of the potential seriousness of rapid future warming is a crime against humanity. Only the vilest scum engage in such poisoned rhetoric. They are regarded with loathing and contempt by the rest of the species. Why would anyone sane want to be lumped in with the vermin?

Betula: if you don’t think the so-called C02 fertilization effect is a good thing, why did you bring it up in the first place? It has no relevance in the context of this discussion except for you to dispute AGW but suggest benefits of the other parameter, C02.

By George you twist and spin and dodge and wriggle in order to cover your tracks. You just aren’t very good at it. And you still never refer to the primary literature. Only appalling web sites like GWPF. Clearly your reading skills are either limited or else you are bone-idle lazy when it comes to ‘sourcing’ your information.

Rednose: What brings your brand of stupidity back here? An article in a right wing corporate rag? One that conflates weather with climate? And why aren’t they writing anything about conditions in Alaska and the Canadian Arctic right now where it is hot?

Just for Rednose: I checked the Environment Canada weather and temperatures across the North West Territories and Yukon are 5-10 C above normal and this will remain for an extended period. Can’t be too good for the Arctic can it? Temperatures on the Arctic coast are 15-20 C, and 30-35 C inland. Alaska is also basking.

If you are going to play the weather is climate game, Reddy, prepare to get burned. And seek out some other source than a right wing newspaper.

You are once again confusing regional with global. And that got old a long time ago. Can’t you come up with something a bit more amusing and challenging? Or are you just a crappy little troll without what it takes to make it to the big time?

And why aren’t they writing anything about conditions in Alaska and the Canadian Arctic right now where it is hot?

Because the article, dear JH ,was reporting the Met Office meeting which was discussing the UK weather for the last several years which seems to have dumbfounded the Met Office as it has been actually much colder than the stuck record forecasts of BBQ Summers and mild winters emmanating from the Met office.
If its that warm in Alaska ( It is midsummer after all) then maybee I should holiday there, as it seems most of Spain and France are having a shite summer as well.

Pay attention, Clown. Globally, we’ve just had the third warmest May in the instrumental record and it’s not even an El Nino year.

As usual, your regional weather hyper-focus is blinding you to the facts. I can’t quite believe I’m being forced to quote this to you *again* because once should have ended your shite forever on this topic. But here you are, maundering on about the fucking UK weather again…

While some places were cold, the northern hemisphere was warmer than average in March, and indeed across the winter, consistent with long-term warming trends. The US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) has recently described such conditions as “pockets of cold in a warming world”.

The last time the northern hemisphere recorded a month — any month — that was cooler than the 1961-1990 long-term average was in February 1994. The last time a whole northern hemisphere winter was colder than average was 1984.

The last time the northern hemisphere recorded a month — any month — that was cooler than the 1961-1990 long-term average was in February 1994. The last time a whole northern hemisphere winter was colder than average was 1984.

Who gives a stuff about the tiny little postage stamp of surface that is the CET? You actually think that blethering on like this is some sort of argument against AGW, which is hideously stupid and morbidly dishonest.

Meanwhile, back in reality:

The last time the northern hemisphere recorded a month — any month — that was cooler than the 1961-1990 long-term average was in February 1994. The last time a whole northern hemisphere winter was colder than average was 1984.

,blockquote>Might as well stand there and shout “look – anthropogenically-forced climate change!”

Well the met Office seems to think its tied up with the AMO.

The key point revolves around discussion of Atlantic ocean cycles, specifically one known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which can have an influence on UK summer weather.

Professor Stephen Belcher, Head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, and Dr James Screen, a NERC Research Fellow at the University of Exeter, were careful in their messaging about the AMO.

They talked about initial research which suggests this cycle, which can last for 10-20 years, can ‘load the dice’ to mean we may see a higher frequency of wetter than average summers before switching to its opposite phase, where we may see the opposite effect.

Currently, they said, it appears we are well into the ‘wet’ phase of this cycle, so it may continue to have an influence for a few more years to come.

I see that ignoring those basic questions is a lifestyle choice for you now. Is “Choose Ignorance” your personal motto?

At least you’re still here though. Olaus Petri, GSW and KarenMackSunspot ran away with their tails between their legs, too scared to even be present on the same thread as those simple questions.

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), can you explain

1) in the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘signal’?

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), can you explain

2) In the context of scientific data collection, what is meant by ‘noise’?

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), can you explain

3) in the context of scientific data collection, what is the implication of the magnitude of the ‘noise’ compared to the magnitude of the ‘signal’? Specifically, what does the relative value of signal to noise imply for the time required to discern signal from noise?

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), can you explain

4) in the context of scientific data collection, what is the danger of attempting to identify signal from noise where the interval of time used is shorter than that indicated by answers to the preceding questions?

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), can you explain

5) in the context of the temperature record for the planet, can you quantify appropriate answers for each of the preceding questions.

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), having addressed the questions above can you now explain

6) what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 17 years, and

7) what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 15 years, and

8) what the mean long-term minimum rate of warming would need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 10 years?

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), with all of the above now under your belt can you now carefully explain

9) what the temperature record to date is really indicating with respect to the progress of planetary warming?

Betula (and any other Denialatus who spouts the “no warming for 15/16/17/x/y/z years” claptrap), can you explain

10) can you assess the scientific wisdom of Curry’s comment about a decade or more of impending cooling?

“bernard, are you a fuckn biology-ignorant who did never understand photosynthesis?”

OMG, we have ourselves another AGW denier but this one has an even greater depth of profound stupidity than most of the others. It seems like every ‘new’ denier that enters Deltoid has the task of out-doing the others in terms of brazen ignorance. ‘Freddy’ is the new troll on the block. How long he will persist here with his kindergarten theatrics is anyone’s guess, but let us hope it is of short duration.

On that note I don’t think its worth the effort to demolish his photosynthesis comment. Anything other than 1 + 1 = 2 will be well over the head of this clown.